Focus: Gridlock Britain

What should we do about the car and the continuing growth in traffic? Over the past couple of weeks the Government has taken a great step forward: it has implicitly acknowledged the unrealism of its vague and ineffectual "integrated transport policy" and begun to address directly one of today's major social issues. In recent years there has been a phenomenal growth in mobility by car and a relative decline of bus and rail, as the chart below shows. Thus a policy of improving public transport, worthy though it may be, is something of a sideshow.

Publicly funded investment and the operations of public transport can show good value, especially in situations such as the commute into big cities where passenger densities are sufficiently high to make the economics of public transport favourable. Elsewhere, the car has become so much a part of our lifestyle that there are relatively few trips for which public transport is a viable alternative. Even if the taxpayer were willing to spend vastly more on subsidies, public transport is never going to make much impression on the national growth in road traffic.

This growth has come about principally because real standards of living double every 30 years or so while, amazingly, the costs of running cars have not risen compared with retail prices (see chart below). Many more people can afford to own and run a car than formerly. Meanwhile public transport fares have risen steeply. The real price of fuel is now about the same as it was in 1964 – and about 30 per cent less, relative to gross household income.

There are other factors contributing to traffic growth. One is the striking growth in the number of households. Another is that we can expect a rapid increase in the number of active older drivers. As the decades pass, both younger and older generations will own and use cars in much higher numbers than their predecessors.

Improved mobility is a major contributor to the quality of life, especially for older people. The retired will be able to stay self-sufficient to a greater degree. There will be savings for health and social services. A policy that asserts that the growth in the number of cars should be stopped must state whether this growth of mobility is to be accommodated.

The growth can be moderated. There is good evidence that people do respond to fuel-price changes, especially over the kind of time horizon that transport policy should be considering. Raising taxation could be used as a means to reduce both traffic and the quantity of fuel burned. At one time government seemed to accept this. The 1997 Labour government initially embraced and reinforced the "fuel tax escalator" policy. Petrol had been cheap by European standards, but by 2000 it was the most expensive in Europe. The proportion of the final price that is tax rose from 44 per cent in 1980 per cent to 82 per cent in 1999.

Total traffic growth was low during 1999 and 2000, with a noticeable dip corresponding to the peak in fuel prices and the fuel price protests in September 2000. The Government did indeed almost manage to halt traffic growth by the simple policy of increasing fuel tax, supported by increasing world crude oil prices. This was just sufficient to offset the normal effect of economic growth. So it should have come as no surprise to the Government that traffic growth has resumed and congestion has worsened: a consequence of abandoning the policy on fuel tax together with entirely predictable economic growth.

Worsening traffic congestion has caused an outcry. As quality of life improves, so people's hatred of wasting time increases. In 1960 in average urban conditions, the cost of fuel constituted about 40 per cent of the overall cost of a trip and time was about 50 per cent. Now time is more highly valued and fuel has fallen to 15 per cent and time has risen to 65 per cent.

Now that government recognises the inevitability of future traffic growth and the pain of congestion, how should it deal with it? While rises in fuel taxation have a part to play, they cannot stop traffic growth at politically acceptable levels. Nor should they, because they are such a blunt instrument. Set high enough to have a useful effect in congested cities they would cause unwarranted damage in country areas. Further, the incidence of fuel tax increases on some poorer groups – many of whom spend far more on motoring than on public transport – may be undesirable.

There is increasing recognition that price must be one of the measures used to manage the problem. It would be a great step forward to recognise that fuel tax is a price for the use of the road system. Then, as the Automobile Association argued last week, quality of service offered would be recognised as an issue. The connection would be made between future demand for traffic, revenues from traffic, and new road investments.

Interestingly, both the major motoring organisations have recently begun to discuss this in a constructive way. There is a general sense that the public may be becoming more receptive to the idea of using price to manage demand as they come to experience the consequences of not doing so: especially if it is part of a package including new road capacity.

Traditionally the Treasury has set rates of motoring tax largely independently of transport policy and independently of public spending on the road system. But these issues are so crucial for both transport policies and overall government finances that the system as a whole must be reformed – one might even say "joined up". Whether the total of taxation on traffic goes up or down is a matter of choice for government. Using charging to manage use of road capacity does not necessarily imply a higher overall level of tax-take.

Short of physical rationing of fuel we still need to address directly the difficulties traffic growth will cause. The Government has conceded that the voters will not tolerate ever-worsening congestion, so more road capacity must be created. More intelligent use of what we already have will make a worthwhile contribution. But new road construction will be necessary.

The public must be more closely involved in the difficult decisions that have to be made. Better public consultation and planning processes are the key. Importantly, we could be far more generous in paying compensation to those adversely affected, as on the Continent. This will ease the problems of the public-inquiry process, as would much closer consultation with local people from the earliest stages.

Transport is an area of social policy in which there are particularly sharp conflicts. Five years ago John Prescott, then Transport Secretary, said that doing nothing was not an option. Last week his successor, Alistair Darling, effectively said it was time to start doing something. But strong leadership by government will be necessary to reach a better mix of personal mobility, price, capacity, infrastructure investment and environmental quality.

The writer is professor of transport and infrastructure at Imperial College, London

Railways by Christian Wolmar

Over the coming months, the benighted commuters who travel into London's Victoria station on SouthCentral's services will be delighted at the sight of brand new trains appearing on the sidings along the route. These gleaming new Electrostar trains are intended to replace the smelly 40-year-old cattle trucks which passengers currently endure twice a day. There is only one little problem. The bulk of these new trains, some 500 out of the 700 on order, will stay in those sidings for the next couple of years, possibly until 2006, two years after the deadline for scrapping the existing trains which no longer meet health and safety standards.

The thousands who travel into Waterloo on South West Trains face a similar situation. Hundreds of new Desiro trains, built by Siemens, are due to come on stream in the next few months but will also sit in sidings. More than 20km of new trains could be sitting idle by this time next year.

The reason why the Electrostars and the Desiros cannot be introduced is simple but incredible: the Southern third rail system does not have enough electricity to power them. The way this débâcle came about is typical of the mess our railways are in. The Electrostars were specified by the train operator (then Connex, now GoVia) in the early days of privatisation five years ago. They were financed by a bank and manufactured by Bombardier but no one thought to check with Railtrack (now Network Rail) that the system had sufficient capacity to take these trains, which use up much more electricity than their predecessors.

The issue has now been picked up by the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA), which is supposed to be organising the upgrading of the supply, estimated to cost a staggering £1bn. But as one railway insider put it, "There is no urgency about this. They don't seem to realise this is going to be a public relations disaster for the industry and possibly an electoral one for Labour if the trains are not running by 2005 when the next election is likely to take place."

This is a classic example of what has gone wrong with the railways since 1996 when one loss-making organisation, British Rail, was split into some 100 different businesses all expected to make a profit. It was a unique experiment on railway operation, untried anywhere in the world, and few railway industry experts are at all surprised it has proved disastrous. But instead of remedying the mistakes brought about by the Tories' privatisation, New Labour sat on its hands.

Indeed, just before Christmas, Alistair Darling announced, in effect, that he was leaving the railways to their own devices. The relaunch of the 10-year transport plan demonstrated that no extra money would be available for the railways. Big new rail projects would be left on the drawing board while available cash would be channelled to road-building as Mr Darling saw this as the principal way out of the transport crisis. It is a far cry from the early days of the Labour government when John Reid, then the transport minister, now the party chairman, said, "train is the central element in solving all our transport problems".

It is no exaggeration to say that the rail industry has been in a permanent state of crisis since the Hatfield crash two years ago in which four people were killed. That was another consequence of the fragmentation of the railway – the accident was caused by a failure in communication between the contractor, Balfour Beattie, and Railtrack over a damaged rail which for months was left unrepaired and shattered under a train travelling at 117mph. When Railtrack panicked by unnecessarily imposing 20mph limits across the network, public confidence in the railways was fatally undermined. The performance has not recovered. The norm is that one in five trains is late, compared with one in 10 before Hatfield, which means people can no longer rely on letting the train take the strain.

Hatfield, along with the massive overruns on the West Coast modernisation project which saw costs soar fourfold to £10bn on refurbishing Britain's premier rail route, led to the bankruptcy of Railtrack and its transformation into the not-for-dividend Network Rail. While that lanced the festering boil of Railtrack, which was absorbing billions of taxpayers' money while still paying out dividends to its shareholders, it has done nothing to address the day-to-day problems, financial and otherwise, of the network.

For example, earlier this month, the poor-performing Connex South Eastern was bailed out to the tune of £58m as it was losing money and went to the SRA with a begging bowl. This was on top of last autumn's rescue of Virgin, which got an extra £106m immediately, part of a larger package likely to be worth three or four times that, and similar rescue deals for another half dozen franchises. Even a rise in passenger numbers of 25 per cent since privatisation has not prevented these companies getting into trouble because they seriously overestimated their ability to reduce costs on what was a relatively efficient system.

Now that growth has stopped and the coming year is going to be a tough one for everyone involved in the railways. For passengers, a few new trains will run but major improvements are not in prospect even in the medium term. For the railway companies, the merest hint of a recession could send them plummeting further into the red. For the SRA – the government quango which is gaining control of the railways, becoming more and more like an embryonic British Rail without the labour force – a financial crisis looms because half the franchises are due for renewal within 18 months and all the operators are likely to ask for extra cash. Meanwhile, Network Rail, now backed by the Government, is spending money at the staggering rate of £100m per week, with little to show for it.

Mr Darling was clearly trying to stem the tide of bail-outs by issuing warnings about the lack of cash, but without big cuts – politically unthinkable despite newspaper speculation last week – he will just have to keep on tapping his mate Gordon Brown for more cash.

The obvious solution to many of the railways' problems is to recreate an integrated system which is the central to the success of the world's best railways, the Swiss, which are mostly publicly owned, and the Japanese, which are private.

But Mr Darling has not only ruled out any extra cash for the railways – he has also said that there should be no more changes to the structure. In other words, for Britain's suffering travellers, the prospect for 2003 is that nothing much will change.

Arriva Trains Northern: The failing railway

Where does it go?

From Berwick-on-Tweed to Leeds, Bradford and Sheffield, including many cross-Pennine routes.

Who travels on it?

It carries 116,000 passengers a day, mainly shoppers and commuters; essential public transport in Pennines.

What's wrong with it?

The trains are overcrowded and plagued with strikes. Arriva does not have enough carriages to keep to timetable, so keeps many trains short.

What is the solution?

The franchise is due to be scrapped in favour of an even bigger region covering both sides of the Pennines. New Hull-to-Liverpool operator should bring industrial disputes to an end, and trains should run better, too.

Will the new scheme work?

Probably not. Region already eats up 64 per cent of subsidy, yet another £20m – unlikely to be available – is needed to make it run.

The traveller's view

Ernie Preston is secretary of the RPC for the northern region. He takes the 7.59am from Harrogate to York

"There are days when system just falls apart. There is often chronic overcrowding because of the shortage of trains."

A303 to the west: top of the tailback league

Where does it go?

It links the South-west with the rest of the country, taking traffic from the M3 at Basingstoke, past Stonehenge and Salisbury Plain, to Devon.

Who travels on it?

Millions of holidaymakers and Londoners throughout the year. Even local traffic finds it hard to avoid.

What's wrong with it?

Motorists heading west hit a queue at Stonehenge. Although many sections are dual-carriageway, frequent slow-downs to single lanes cause more jams.

What is the solution?

A scheme between Amesbury and Ilminster that includes a new one-and-a-half mile dual carriageway near Stonehenge which will run in a tunnel.

Will the proposed scheme work?

The new system will speed up traffic for a short stretch but serious delays will continue unless the entire road is made dual carriageway – unlikely in the short term.

The traveller's view

Professor David Burghes of Exeter University is a frequent user

"You can get stuck behind a tractor with no chance to overtake. But if they proposed alterations I'd protest, because even though I don't like traffic jams I like the countryside."

M5/M6 interchange: the nation's worst road junction

Where does it go?

It brings south-west and north-west traffic together at Walsall.

Who travels on it?

About 160,000 vehicles use the junction every day – a slow-moving mixture of long-distance drivers and local commuters.

What's wrong with it?

The M6 through West Midlands is the worst in Britain for delays. Junction 8 is one of the worst spots, with much lane swapping.

What is the solution?

The privately financed M6 toll, due to open in autumn, will take long-distance traffic off the M6 at Coleshill and round Birmingham.

Will the new scheme work?

There is little optimism, particularly with traffic continuing to grow: it could even draw still more vehicles on to the motorway.

The traveller's view

Tamsin Johnston drives from Birmingham to work at the RAC's Walsall control centre

"Any incident can turn into a traffic jam. I get caught at least once a week. You must expect the unexpected. People are often reduced to panic."

The suffocating capital: a special case

Who travels where?

Up to 10m people enter London every weekday morning. Capital's population will probably reach 8.25m in 10 years. Average car speed is now under 10mph, the same as in 1903.

What's wrong with it?

London is full. Choked streets are over-run with roadworks. Buses cannot move for illegally parked cars. The rail network is creaking and the Tube is plagued by equipment failure and strikes.

What is the solution?

An east-west Tube line, East London line extension, Tube modernisation, Thameslink 2000, and more buses. Mayor, Ken Livingstone, is introducing congestion charging next month.

Will the proposed schemes work?

Hard to say. Most schemes have never looked likely to get off the ground. Key projects are upgrading of Tube system and congestion charging. The first is bogged down in negotiations with cash-strapped companies. The second – a likely indicator for other cities – has already met fierce opposition from the capital's motorists.

The traveller's view

Dr Arvind Madan works on the perimeter of the congestion-charging zone

"It takes me 35 minutes to do five miles. When charging comes in, I will have to visit patients both inside and outside the zone. Charging may deter support staff from working in central London."

Thameslink: the "too popular" rail line

Where does it go?

From Bedford in the north to Brighton in the south, via stops such as Luton, St Albans and central London.

Who travels on it?

120,000 people a day, mainly London commuters but shoppers too, plus people going to Gatwick airport.

What's wrong with it?

Thameslink makes a profit and runs where people want to go, but it is overcrowded, unreliable and only short trains are used. Old infrastructure limits services.

What is the solution?

Thameslink 2000 is a scheme dreamed up more than a decade ago to ease congestion, particularly at London Bridge, a bottleneck. Major rebuilding would create 24 trains an hour, each one containing 12 or more carriages.

Will the new scheme happen?

The project is caught up in endless argument even though it was a priority in 1989; there is still no sign of it. The Strategic Rail Authority's statement that there will be no new schemes means it may never actually happen.

The traveller's view

David Edwards, a journalist working in London, takes the 8.36am from Brighton to London Bridge

"The service I get is always late. The one I get has arrived on time fewer than 10 times. By the time you get to East Croydon, it's like a livestock train. The number of complaints has gone down because people have just given up."